<quoted text>You are incorrect. The optimum of the current interglacial was approximately 5000 to 9000 years ago. We have been on a COOLING trend since then, as others have also shown you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...If humans hadn't started pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the 1800s, the Little Ice Age might still be with us today. We may have arrested the slow slide into another ice age, but we've overshot & have emitted WAY too much carbon into the atmosphere.BTW, it's "...would HAVE happened..." or "...would'VE happened..." - not "...would OF..."

If you want people to believe you are right then you need better than the junk William Connonelly wrote for wikipedia.

So if all you have is wikipeidia then you in reality have no proof at all. Most teachers will not even accept wikipeida and the site even has an entry saying that you should not trust them either.

<quoted text>If you want people to believe you are right then you need better than the junk William Connonelly [SIC] wrote for wikipedia.So if all you have is wikipeidia [SIC] then you in reality have no proof at all. Most teachers will not even accept wikipeida [SIC] and the site even has an entry saying that you should not trust them either.

Then you're posting in the wrong place. If you don't like what ANYone says on Wiki, then you should try to develop a TINY bit of courage, sign on there & tell them EXACTLY how they're wrong. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail. Period.

I reference Wiki because it's usually pretty accessible, plus they have lots of live links to reputable sources. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they're a LOT more accurate than the average site out there. The fact that so many people can input their own knowledge tends to push the site toward the truth.

So you're talking to the wrong guy in the wrong place. Either post on Wiki & tell them exactly HOW they're wrong - or SU.

You might also show a BIT more respect by learning how to spell proper names. It's "Wikipedia" & "William Connolley."

<quoted text>... we simply MUST switch to non-carbon emitting energy, & switch ASAP. It's notable that nuclear power doesn't emit carbon, & it would be VASTLY preferable to burning more fossil fuel. We just need to use fast neutron "breeder" reactors, or make the switch to liquid thorium; both these have the advantage of much, MUCH less dangerous waste that is radioactive for a MUCH shorter time.

Right on.

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

<quoted text> ... Ultimately, mining the lunar mare for Helium-3, which can fuse with deuterium without releasing excess neutrons, may be much better over the longer term. The amount of energy is enormous. The lack of excess neutrons means reactor vessels last much, much longer. The Chinese will probably dominate this industry in the future; they're the ones who are foresightful enough to be returning to the moon.

Simple geometry says fusion will never be competitive with fission. Here's why -

1) All that lovely energy is useless until & unless you get it transferred into a working fluid that drives a turbine. Heat transfer is a function of surface area, which is in turn a function of the square of the cross-sectional diameter. A PWR fuel rod is less than 1/2" in diameter, while the fusion plasma in a tokamak (if they can ever keep one lit) is several inches in diameter. Thus, fission plants will always be an order of magnitude more thermally efficient than fusion plants. Simple geometry.

2) Fusion plants will have all the same radwaste issues that fission plants do - their reactor components will get just as 'hot' from induced radioactivity as in fission reactors. But fusion reactors will present an additional radwaste/environmental radioactivity release problem on top of that, for which there is no apparent solution - tritium, and lots of it. How do you contain and prevent release of a radioactive gas that diffuses right thru steel itself?

Nope - fission will always be more competitive as a baseload generation technology than fusion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.